Spacecraft model for my sci-fi super8 film

[MovieStuff]

This looks just terrific. Great job.
If you can squeeze it down to 5.6 at a focal length of 8mm, you'll have about 8 inches to about 12 feet.

It is very difficult for me to crank up the lighting to get 5.6 reading. The problem is that I want to light the model with a single light source in order to have sharp shadows. In deep space with only one sun, the shadows are real sharp ;-)

Your approach is correct but you don't need to crank up the light. Slow down the camera to about 6fps or so slower and move the ship very, very slowly. The slower shutter speed will allow you to use very little light and still have great depth of field.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

However, I am an old school guy and I want to be able to project my movie at the end. That rules out all negative film.

Recently Andec in Germany started a transfer service of Super 8 negative to Super 8 positive. And I don't find it too expensive. But I haven't tried it yet ...

Yes I know about that and I would be willing to try it. However, I think I remember that with this process, the emulsion ends up on the wrong side of the film making it prone to scratching in a projector. Do I remember right ?

François

If you look at the gate of really good projectors, you will find that they all handle the film by the edges. There is usually a depression down the middle of the gate and pressure plate. A print would be fine.

Roger

[Sasounet]

This looks just terrific. Great job.
If you can squeeze it down to 5.6 at a focal length of 8mm, you'll have about 8 inches to about 12 feet.

It is very difficult for me to crank up the lighting to get 5.6 reading. The problem is that I want to light the model with a single light source in order to have sharp shadows. In deep space with only one sun, the shadows are real sharp ;-)

Your approach is correct but you don't need to crank up the light. Slow down the camera to about 6fps or so slower and move the ship very, very slowly. The slower shutter speed will allow you to use very little light and still have great depth of field.

Roger

I wish I could. The slowest frame-rate of all my cameras is 18 fps. (Z800, Nizo 801, Elmo 1012S) Maybe I should try to find a cheap camera on Ebay that does 6 fps. I will wait for my K40 test results and see.

François

[MovieStuff]

I wish I could. The slowest frame-rate of all my cameras is 18 fps. (Z800, Nizo 801, Elmo 1012S) Maybe I should try to find a cheap camera on Ebay that does 6 fps. I will wait for my K40 test results and see.

François

You can pretty much make any camera run slower by lowering the voltage. The trick is to maintain amperage. So, if the camera requires 6 volts with 4 AA batteries, then you use two D cell batteries at 3 volts or run 4 D cells in parallel to get 1.5 volts. The only thing that will not work correctly is the light meter but who cares? You'd be doing tests anyway to see what looks right. This type of work pretty much demands tests because high contrast ratios can't be judged by a light meter, in terms of aesthetics, especially on reversal. You could use a slide projector to light your ship. You'd get no heat, less bounce and the detailing would be razor sharp with the focused light source. Just like the sun! ;)

Roger

[Actor]

P.S. As it is right now the gearing makes the rotating part spin at 40 sec for a whole turn. That speed is perfect. Very impressive to see. However, being a good engineer, I calculate the resulting gravity force the passengers would be submitted to. It turns out they would feel about 1/5 of a G. Like moon gravity. To right rotation speed should a bit more than twice as fast. But it would not look as good so I am leaving it like that. So much for the scientifically accurate movie..

I don't think having 1/5g is scientifically inaccurate. The traditional wheel type station that the late Wernher von Braun designed in the 50s was to have a 1/3g gravity. A 1g station would require a stronger structure which, in turn, would mean more weight to be lifted into orbit. According to von Braun the savings in earth-to-orbit mass was considerable if the station was designed for 1/3g.

The main reason for even wanting gravity is to eliminate the adverse effects of weightlessness that astronauts at the International Space Statiion have experienced, primarily bone loss. How much gravity is required to prevent bone loss has yet to be determined. 1/5g may be enough.

The most "scientifically accurate" sci fi film has got to be Kubrick's 2001, yet it has many inaccuracies when it comes to gravity. The people at the lunar briefing do not move as though in lunar gravity, and the astronauts in Discovery climb up and down ladders that they would not need. Having emphasized weightlessness in the early parts of the film, and gotten the audience to suspend disbelief, Kubrick pretty much ignores it in the latter parts of the film.

[Actor]

you don't want anything out of focus in the foreground or the background when shooting miniatures like this.

Roger

I wonder about that. In this special case the background is the blackness of space, supposedly at infinity. In reality, the background is going to be some kind of black backdrop (wood painted black, black cloth, whatever). It seems to me that having this background out of focus would help the illusion. Of course, this approach brings up another problem, how to get a star field you normally associate with outer space. One solution would to be to present an establishing shot with star field but sans space ship. The show a shot of the ship, sans star field. Hopefully the audience would buy it.

Another approach would be to have an out-of-focus black background and somehow generate a star field that is withing the DOF. I have not worked out any details of how to do this, but I have some ideas. A planet or another ship in the background could be another model that is closer than it looks.

[Sasounet]

[You could use a slide projector to light your ship. You'd get no heat, less bounce and the detailing would be razor sharp with the focused light source. Just like the sun! ;)

Roger

Good idea, I haven't thought of that. I wonder if the 300W "focus light" of my slide projector will light the ship as much as my 1000W flood light. If so, I will use the projector.

I think I have no choice to film at 18 fps as the rotating part of the model would be extremely difficult to redesign in order to slow it down at the right speed for a 6 fps camera. But what I will do is to use my elmo 1012S-XL instead of my Nizo. The elmo has a 220 deg shutter compare to the 150deg for the Nizo. That is about 1.5X more light going to the film and should allow me to close the iris to f4 instead of f2.8 giving me some extras inches of depth of field.

François

[Sasounet]

Of course, this approach brings up another problem, how to get a star field you normally associate with outer space. One solution would to be to present an establishing shot with star field but sans space ship. The show a shot of the ship, sans star field. Hopefully the audience would buy it.

Another approach would be to have an out-of-focus black background and somehow generate a star field that is withing the DOF. I have not worked out any details of how to do this, but I have some ideas. A planet or another ship in the background could be another model that is closer than it looks.

You are not taking into account that I will be using Single 8 film. I have done some test where I film the model first, rewind the film, and do another pass with the star field and or planet. It comes out very nice. The only problem with this solution is to make sure the model, while moving, does not go over the stars as they will be seen through the ship.

I also tried the black background with holes in it as on the photo in my first post. The black paper is installed in my garage door so the stars are made of bright daylight. Works well but the model as to be near the star field or they will appear out of focus do to the depth of field problem. Also I have to move the ship (100 lbs with the stand) instead of the camera for travelling.

Last thing I tried was a star field projected on a scotchlight screen with the model in between (front projection). I was sure I wouldn't see the stars in the final film but I was wrong. It came out not bad at all. Expect to see many front projection scene in the film!

François

[MovieStuff]

You are not taking into account that I will be using Single 8 film. I have done some test where I film the model first, rewind the film, and do another pass with the star field and or planet. It comes out very nice. The only problem with this solution is to make sure the model, while moving, does not go over the stars as they will be seen through the ship.

Since your ship's path is most likely straight (unlike a jet fighter), then you could use a split screen to hide the bottom support of the ship. You are still doing two exposures but you simply run a black mask in front of the camera to hide the support below the ship. Make the mask run parallel to the bottom of the ship and reverse the mask on the second pass to add back in the stars along the bottom while protecting the already exposed area of the ship with stars already behind it. This way the ship can pass in front of the stars. You can do it with a mirror also. Just place a mirror in between the camera and ship and align the top edge of the mirror along the bottom of the ship to hide the support and reflect a panel of stars that are off to one side of the camera. So you have stars behind the ship and the mirror places stars in front of the support and hides it at the same time! ;)

See this page for some in-camera split screens that were done this way. Not shot on super 8 but the principal is the same.

http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff_gallery.html

Hope this gives you some ideas.

Roger

[Actor]

...to hide the bottom support of the ship...

Kubrick was sneaky about this. A lot of his shots have actors upside down or sideways so the support cable is never in the shot. In one scene the support cable is attached to the crotch of the space suit. The actor is hanging upside down from the ceiling and the camera is pointed up. A simple idea and cheap. The audience expects the camera to be horizontal and accepts the illusion.

I think something like this was done in the "jump across space" scene.

[Actor]

However, I am an old school guy and I want to be able to project my movie at the end.

Does that mean it's going to be a silent movie? Or are you going to have a magnetic soundtrack?

Do you intend to distribute it on super 8?

Are you going to shoot the model in motion, or are you going to "animate" it, i.e., shoot one frame then move the model and repeat?

Is this to be a feature or a short?

[Sasounet]

Does that mean it's going to be a silent movie? Or are you going to have a magnetic soundtrack?

Its gonna be a movie with sound. I am still pondering how I am going to sync the sound to the finish movie but I have a few ideas.

Do you intend to distribute it on super 8?

Nope. I will have the only Super 8 copy. I will do a high quality video transfer don't worry.

Are you going to shoot the model in motion, or are you going to "animate" it, i.e., shoot one frame then move the model and repeat?

I will mostly shoot in motion. The ship has motors to spin the middle portion in real time. Also I have already built a motorized camera travelling device. There might be a few shots in stop motion.

Is this to be a feature or a short?

It is supposed to last around 1 hour according to the current script.

[Ektagraphic]

Great! Be sure to share the film when you are through! How long will it be?

[sunrise]

Kubrick was sneaky about this. A lot of his shots have actors upside down or sideways so the support cable is never in the shot. In one scene the support cable is attached to the crotch of the space suit. The actor is hanging upside down from the ceiling and the camera is pointed up. A simple idea and cheap. The audience expects the camera to be horizontal and accepts the illusion

I was just going to bring up Kubrick. Almost all of his shots of free floating gravity is filmed from the floor up to hide wires. The weird angling in many shots also helped this.

For the movement of the spacecraft, Kubrick used very slow movement and long exposures to get the proper floating through space effect making the movement of the spacecraft very 'realistic' (and beatiful). You might want to check out the book by Piers Bizony "2001: Filming the Future" which describes many of the effects in detail.

And speaking of depth of field in space, to be realistic you'd want a 'huge' spacecraft like this to be in complete focus as well as the background unless the camera would be placed closer than 10 meters (in the spacecraft's scale) to the spacecraft.

And I must say that this looks absolutely fantastic. I am looking so much forward to seeing this project realized.

michael

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

Wow, it looks great! You put down a lot of work on this... Looking forward to see the results.